.jpg)
Bank Freezing Accounts=20
Thank you.
It appears as if the rules were designed to benefit the Trustee...and the Trustee would need to take a volitional act in securing the funds. In doing a benefit to burden test, if every bank took this course of action, our clients would have a serious problem on their hands. How on earth do they pay bills...if they take that money out, isnt that "cheating the estate" if you only put it back in the next day to pay necessities...?
Afterall, absent a Court Order, taking those ruby red slippers off someone without their consent can have severe and harsh penalties. Even if the Ch 7 Trustee is "entitled" to them, there are steps to take before confiscation...Can you imagine otherwise--chaos would ensue..
So, I am still not convinced...and fear that if this adopted by all of the banks, for whatever reason, then it is a lose lose for the Clients---and as far as I have seen, the Trustee's are not all that quick to help out in these situations.
A "scream or die" motion is not economical in most cases.
Once again, what is the rationale in the Bank in doing so? Is it a mandatory or permissive Statute--?
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2009 10:37:42 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Bank Freezing Accounts
Matt:
exemption concept.
Section 541 brings all property of the debtor into the estate. I often tell clients when they get up the next morning after filing and put on their socks and underwear, they are wearing the trustee's socks and underwear.
It is only when the 60 days runs after the 341a that the property reverts to the debtor, and then only if there is no objection to the exemption.
In fact, even that statement is suspect. 349 says property only reverts if the estate is closed and the property was not administered.
Some trustee's take the position the underwear is not really the debtor's underwear again, unitl they are done administering the estate.
So, an exemption is not really and exemption, it is a claim of exemption, subject to dispute by the trustee and any other creditor. Consider the ruby slippers. If you owned the ruby slippers and claimed them exempt as wearing apparel, the trustee could take the slippers, sell them, and just give the debtor back the $1050 or so the exemption is worth.
The answer is not a 362 motion it is a motion to compel abandonment. You can file one as a scream or die and get an order in 15 days (from any "reasonable" judge).
dennis
The post was migrated from Yahoo.